Sell 24/1.4L II and 70-200/f4L IS for 24-70 II or not?

[hammar]

I have been using 24 mm (first the 24/2.8 and later L II) since I got my first FF camera (5D2) in 2009. I currently use 24/1.4L II (with 5D3) as my everyday prime and sometimes 40/2.8 when I want to be less conspicuous.

My third lens is the 70-200/f4LIS which I only use occasionally for portraits and wildlife (however, very limited range). Considering the fact that the new 24-70 is near-prime sharp, I rarely use apertures under 2 with the 24 (primarily landscapes) and the fact that I would not miss the 70-200 immensely (70-200 f/2.8 II next on the list) - I'm contemplating selling my two L lenses for the 24-70 mark II.

My basic goal is to have a more versatile kit, where I don't have to change the lens as soon as I need something between 24 and 70 mm. But still, with superb image quality.

I'm very interested what you guys think about this idea, would there be a noticeable drop in IQ at 24 mm and at landscape apertures? You who own both, do you find that your 24/1.4L II is obsolete with the 24-70 II?

 

[Dylan777]

It doesn't matter what we have to say, most posters ended up with 24-70 II after they posted similiar questions. YOU KNOW YOU WANT IT.....just get it

I would add 85 f1.8 for protrait. Sell everything esle, including 40 shorty.

 

[distant.star]

.
I've used that 24, but I haven't used the 24-70.

My first thought is I don't think the 24-70 can provide the kind of lush color and contrast you get with the 24. That makes it a real gem for landscapes.

If I were thinking this way, I'd rent the 24-70 and see if you like the look.

On the other hand, if the color/contrast are not important to you, the sharpness of the 24-70 is claimed to near equal anything in its neighborhood.

 

[Random Orbits]

At smaller apertures, there isn't much of a difference between the two. If anything, the zoom might have better edge/corner performance and also more vignetting than the prime at larger apertures. Because you don't use the 24L II much at the largest apertures, it looks like the 24-70 II is a good choice for you.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I have been using 24 mm (first the 24/2.8 and later L II) since I got my first FF camera (5D2) in 2009. I currently use 24/1.4L II (with 5D3) as my everyday prime and sometimes 40/2.8 when I want to be less conspicuous.

My third lens is the 70-200/f4LIS which I only use occasionally for portraits and wildlife (however, very limited range). Considering the fact that the new 24-70 is near-prime sharp, I rarely use apertures under 2 with the 24 (primarily landscapes) and the fact that I would not miss the 70-200 immensely (70-200 f/2.8 II next on the list) - I'm contemplating selling my two L lenses for the 24-70 mark II.

My basic goal is to have a more versatile kit, where I don't have to change the lens as soon as I need something between 24 and 70 mm. But still, with superb image quality.

I'm very interested what you guys think about this idea, would there be a noticeable drop in IQ at 24 mm and at landscape apertures? You who own both, do you find that your 24/1.4L II is obsolete with the 24-70 II?

I got my 24 1.4 II because I was fed up with how zooms handled 24mm on FF for landscapes. I got the 24-70 II. I sold the 24 1.4 II. The 24-70 II is optimized for 24mm most of all and it does really well. It's VERY hard (as in basically impossible even at 100% peeping all over) to tell the sharpness apart between it and the prime (maybe the deepest corners are a touch better for the prime). Contrast and color of the zoom look the same, at worst. The zoom actually has LESS LoCA purple fringing when you get branches against clouds and such than the prime! Prime does have less distortion and the field curvature is slightly different in nature.

If you really are planning on the 24-70 2.8 IS II for SURE and you are SURE you won't mind it's weight and size for everyday usage, then yeah I'd sell both and get the 24-70 II.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

.
I've used that 24, but I haven't used the 24-70.

My first thought is I don't think the 24-70 can provide the kind of lush color and contrast you get with the 24. That makes it a real gem for landscapes.

If I were thinking this way, I'd rent the 24-70 and see if you like the look.

On the other hand, if the color/contrast are not important to you, the sharpness of the 24-70 is claimed to near equal anything in its neighborhood.

24-70 II DOES provide the same lush color and contrast as the 24 1.4 II. I compared both and you really can't tell in that regard.

 

[spinworkxroy]

How much post processing do you actually do or do you want something just straight out of camera?
Th2 24 prime is going ot be better at 24mm than the zoom that's for sure..
but you can always do some PP on the zoom to get it close.
And yes, the 24-70 is as good as a prime and that's the main reason why i've stopped using the 50 and 85 primes for portraits shoots these days…If i had 2 bodies then yes, i would have the 85 but having to switch lenses while in the field..i find it too troublesome and the 24-70 goes 90% of the 85 at 70mm and it does everything else as good as the 50.
Yes you don't get the bokeh of the wide aperture primes but it's not often i need to shoot at those apertures so the pros outweigh the cons and PP can also get the bokeh like a prime if you do enough

 

[drolo61]

If you are willing to take the weight, go sell your stuff, you won't regret
This one for sharpness

 

[drolo61]

...and this one for colours

 

[Viggo]

The same choice here, except the 70-200, i sold a mk1 24-70, I chose to sell my 24 L II to help pay for the 24-70 II. While I will sometimes miss the wide angle
Shallow dof I'm getting AF that's on another planet. And I loves my AF ! Now that I have sold the mk1 24-70 I constantly miss it. And I'm one those prime all the wAy guys. Not anymore. The good old combo of 24-70 , 70-200 is fantastic for what I shoot, and the 35 and 50 is there if the light is too low.

My 24-70 is in the mail as of right now, bought it yesterday, I'll come
Back with some initial thoughts when I get it.

 

[hammar]

How much post processing do you actually do or do you want something just straight out of camera?

I shoot raw and put all my photos through Aperture for basic corrections, I very rarely do anything that require PS though.

 

[Dylan777]

How much post processing do you actually do or do you want something just straight out of camera?

I shoot raw and put all my photos through Aperture for basic corrections, I very rarely do anything that require PS though.

I set my camera RAW+ JPEG(for reviewing the keepers). Below are 2 photos shot with 5D III + 24-70 f2.8, JPEG file, without editing:

 

[RGF]

Ever consider the 24-105. About 1/2 the cost of the 24-70 II

 

[hammar]

Ever consider the 24-105. About 1/2 the cost of the 24-70 II

No, simply because the IQ of that lens is below what I'm looking for. I made this thread to figure out if the IQ would suffer by going from 24/1.4II to 24-70II

 

[Viggo]

Got mine today!

And even though I haven't even done any afma yet, except a ballpark of +5 at 70mm, this lens changes everything. Holy mother!

I haven't seen sharpness, color and contrast AND blistering AF like this since I owned the 300 f2.8 IS. Simply mindblowing. And to say it's as sharp as the 24 L II is a big understatement for the three copies I have owned of that lens, it's WAY better. Superb build. Weight and balance on the 1d X is perfect, a bit tight zoom-ring, but that's just because it's spanking new I guess.

And I got a great deal with special offer and cashback so price isn't a negative anymore. I might miss the deep hood of the mk1 which was great for keep rain off the front element, but hey.

Oh, and it came with the pinch-cap, which I still frikkin hate, I'm buying and old one for it.

 

[drolo61]

told you so
congratulations and have fun with it
share some pics here?

 

[Dylan777]

Got mine today!

And even though I haven't even done any afma yet, except a ballpark of +5 at 70mm, this lens changes everything. Holy mother!

I haven't seen sharpness, color and contrast AND blistering AF like this since I owned the 300 f2.8 IS. Simply mindblowing. And to say it's as sharp as the 24 L II is a big understatement for the three copies I have owned of that lens, it's WAY better. Superb build. Weight and balance on the 1d X is perfect, a bit tight zoom-ring, but that's just because it's spanking new I guess.

And I got a great deal with special offer and cashback so price isn't a negative anymore. I might miss the deep hood of the mk1 which was great for keep rain off the front element, but hey.

Oh, and it came with the pinch-cap, which I still frikkin hate, I'm buying and old one for it.

Congrats Viggo on your new toy

It looks like you got 2013 copy - most 2013 Canon lenses come with pinch-cap.

 

[hammar]

Got mine today!

That's it! I'm buying it!

 

[Chosenbydestiny]

Got mine today!

And even though I haven't even done any afma yet, except a ballpark of +5 at 70mm, this lens changes everything. Holy mother!

I haven't seen sharpness, color and contrast AND blistering AF like this since I owned the 300 f2.8 IS. Simply mindblowing. And to say it's as sharp as the 24 L II is a big understatement for the three copies I have owned of that lens, it's WAY better. Superb build. Weight and balance on the 1d X is perfect, a bit tight zoom-ring, but that's just because it's spanking new I guess.

And I got a great deal with special offer and cashback so price isn't a negative anymore. I might miss the deep hood of the mk1 which was great for keep rain off the front element, but hey.

Oh, and it came with the pinch-cap, which I still frikkin hate, I'm buying an old one for it.

Haha, why do you hate the pinch cap? I personally like it so far, makes it faster to pull the cap out, put it away, and start shooting.

 

[Dylan777]

Got mine today!

That's it! I'm buying it!

I knew it...your mind is already set and your decision is already made prior your post on 24-70 II ;D

Get a decent filter